Things that are lost with "Progress" and "Federal Government"

[ohio jones]

If you want agriculture to be local then I guess we will need to give most of Kansas and Nebraska back to the bison. Because there won’t be any sustainable localized agriculture out there on those empty plains.

Pumping aquifers beneath Kansas dry in order to grow hay is indeed not sustainable, and yes, the bison should come back. America got rid of the bison in order to win its wars against the Native Americans.

In order to save the bison, we’re going to have to eat them.
Just a week or two ago, I noticed bison in the meat department at Meijer. I didn't look closely, but if it turns out to be from my friend's herd I'll be trying it (though I think they currently sell only in the Denver-Cheyenne corridor).

What did mama buffalo say to baby buffalo when he left for school?

[Szdfan]

In a nutshell:

Urban people are bad because they don’t let rural people have a voice and tell them what to do. By the way, rural people’s multigenerational farms and ranches are bad for the environment, so they should abandon their homes and the communities they grew up in so they can move elsewhere and do the type of agriculture that Josh thinks they should do.

[Szdfan]

If you want agriculture to be local then I guess we will need to give most of Kansas and Nebraska back to the bison. Because there won’t be any sustainable localized agriculture out there on those empty plains.

Pumping aquifers beneath Kansas dry in order to grow hay is indeed not sustainable, and yes, the bison should come back. America got rid of the bison in order to win its wars against the Native Americans.

In order to save the bison, we’re going to have to eat them.
Just a week or two ago, I noticed bison in the meat department at Meijer. I didn't look closely, but if it turns out to be from my friend's herd I'll be trying it (though I think they currently sell only in the Denver-Cheyenne corridor).

What did mama buffalo say to baby buffalo when he left for school?

Good article. Within limits, market-based conservation is not a bad idea. There’s more than one way to skin the bison.

[RZehr]

If you want agriculture to be local then I guess we will need to give most of Kansas and Nebraska back to the bison. Because there won’t be any sustainable localized agriculture out there on those empty plains.

Pumping aquifers beneath Kansas dry in order to grow hay is indeed not sustainable, and yes, the bison should come back. America got rid of the bison in order to win its wars against the Native Americans.

In order to save the bison, we’re going to have to eat them.
Just a week or two ago, I noticed bison in the meat department at Meijer. I didn't look closely, but if it turns out to be from my friend's herd I'll be trying it (though I think they currently sell only in the Denver-Cheyenne corridor).

What did mama buffalo say to baby buffalo when he left for school?

Bye son!
Looks like there are too many in Yellowstone and Grand Canyon if someone wants to shoot some.
https://www.outdoorlife.com/story/conse ... ison-cull/

https://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/n ... 98d7b.html

I raise one for meat. It was fantastic. I have the hide on the floor and the skull on the wall.

[Josh]

That was my reaction too. Agriculture is the lifeblood of my community. You kill that, we’re done.

Yet there won’t be any lifeblood left without a migration to more sustainable practices; pumping aquifers dry and relying on fossil fuels for farming isn’t going to work forever, and the sooner we correct this, the better.

When I told my wife about what you were saying, she compared you to AOC. You’re basically the same thing as the people you are criticizing — a city slicker who doesn’t know anything about agriculture or rural life who thinks he can tell rural folk how to live to the point that they should abandon their homes and move elsewhere. Who says irony is dead?

Whilst I don't agree with all of AOC's politics, she's someone who fights for working class people (and successfully kept Amazon from bulldozing a lot of her congressional district, which did not want Amazon moving into their back yard, getting lots of tax breaks, and Jeff Bezos flying his helicopter with a special exception thru their neighbourhood because he's too special to ride in a car). It's unfortunate how much the right wing mocks AOC - and usually over trivial things like mocking her appearance.

[Josh]

In a nutshell:

Urban people are bad because they don’t let rural people have a voice and tell them what to do. By the way, rural people’s multigenerational farms and ranches are bad for the environment, so they should abandon their homes and the communities they grew up in so they can move elsewhere and do the type of agriculture that Josh thinks they should do.

You are completely twisting what I said backwards, but that's no change; you've turned twisting my words into a sport harkening all the way back to the MennoNerds days. Take a step back and try to actually understand what I am saying.

Overall, rural people prefer different politics than urban people. It would be best to allow them to engage in self-government. There will always be a minority that doesn't like the dominant politics in a region, like conservative people who live in cities like Portland.

What doesn't make sense is organising government such that the megacity in a region sets policy for the rest of the state, or that the federal government is basically controlled by political representation from a few megacities. America is set up so that both populous places get a voice, and so do non-populous places.

Of course if you don't like the government where you live, there's always the option to move to a place where you like it more. That's entirely a choice up to you. For example, if you think Colorado's taxes are too low, you could try moving to California, where they are quite high.

[PeterG]

I raise one for meat. It was fantastic.

Agreed. Bison is delicious.

[Ken]

In a nutshell:

Urban people are bad because they don’t let rural people have a voice and tell them what to do. By the way, rural people’s multigenerational farms and ranches are bad for the environment, so they should abandon their homes and the communities they grew up in so they can move elsewhere and do the type of agriculture that Josh thinks they should do.

You are completely twisting what I said backwards, but that's no change; you've turned twisting my words into a sport harkening all the way back to the MennoNerds days. Take a step back and try to actually understand what I am saying.

Overall, rural people prefer different politics than urban people. It would be best to allow them to engage in self-government. There will always be a minority that doesn't like the dominant politics in a region, like conservative people who live in cities like Portland.

What doesn't make sense is organising government such that the megacity in a region sets policy for the rest of the state, or that the federal government is basically controlled by political representation from a few megacities. America is set up so that both populous places get a voice, and so do non-populous places.

Of course if you don't like the government where you live, there's always the option to move to a place where you like it more. That's entirely a choice up to you. For example, if you think Colorado's taxes are too low, you could try moving to California, where they are quite high.

"Places" don't vote Josh, People do. With the sole exception being the Senate.

In any event, what you describe goes both ways. For example, gun politics in this country is largely rural folk imposing their policies on urban and suburban areas

[Szdfan]

In a nutshell:

Urban people are bad because they don’t let rural people have a voice and tell them what to do. By the way, rural people’s multigenerational farms and ranches are bad for the environment, so they should abandon their homes and the communities they grew up in so they can move elsewhere and do the type of agriculture that Josh thinks they should do.

You are completely twisting what I said backwards, but that's no change; you've turned twisting my words into a sport harkening all the way back to the MennoNerds days. Take a step back and try to actually understand what I am saying.

Overall, rural people prefer different politics than urban people. It would be best to allow them to engage in self-government. There will always be a minority that doesn't like the dominant politics in a region, like conservative people who live in cities like Portland.

What doesn't make sense is organising government such that the megacity in a region sets policy for the rest of the state, or that the federal government is basically controlled by political representation from a few megacities. America is set up so that both populous places get a voice, and so do non-populous places.

Of course if you don't like the government where you live, there's always the option to move to a place where you like it more. That's entirely a choice up to you. For example, if you think Colorado's taxes are too low, you could try moving to California, where they are quite high.

I understand what you’re saying. I also see you — a city dweller and an outsider — telling rural people what to do. It you came down here and told farmers and ranchers that they should turn their land over to the bison and migrate, how do you think they are going to respond?

[Josh]

In a nutshell:

Urban people are bad because they don’t let rural people have a voice and tell them what to do. By the way, rural people’s multigenerational farms and ranches are bad for the environment, so they should abandon their homes and the communities they grew up in so they can move elsewhere and do the type of agriculture that Josh thinks they should do.

You are completely twisting what I said backwards, but that's no change; you've turned twisting my words into a sport harkening all the way back to the MennoNerds days. Take a step back and try to actually understand what I am saying.

Overall, rural people prefer different politics than urban people. It would be best to allow them to engage in self-government. There will always be a minority that doesn't like the dominant politics in a region, like conservative people who live in cities like Portland.

What doesn't make sense is organising government such that the megacity in a region sets policy for the rest of the state, or that the federal government is basically controlled by political representation from a few megacities. America is set up so that both populous places get a voice, and so do non-populous places.

Of course if you don't like the government where you live, there's always the option to move to a place where you like it more. That's entirely a choice up to you. For example, if you think Colorado's taxes are too low, you could try moving to California, where they are quite high.

I understand what you’re saying. I also see you — a city dweller and an outsider — telling rural people what to do. It you came down here and told farmers and ranchers that they should turn their land over to the bison and migrate, how do you think they are going to respond?

What I said from the start is that responsible self government is best; I have no desire to rule as supreme dictator over Colorado, but by the same token, rural Colorado isn’t best governed by people in Denver, Washington, or Brussels.

I don’t work in government and don’t make it my business to order other people around. I do think sustainable agriculture is best and often discuss this with people who are rancher and farmers. So far, very few people I talk to even disagree with me. Many of them are feeling very pinched with their feed prices skyrocketing (eg soybeans for egg farmers costing double of last year) yet they are getting paid just a little bit more (around 15%) for their end product. I have yet to have a conversation with the conclusion that Big Ag knows best and that more corporate consolidation of farmland and farm ownership is a good thing.